> A problem when including/copying a limited set of tiddlers that > contain macro calls is that you might not have included the tiddlers > with the macro definitions and this causes errors.
While it's tempting to create a technical solution for this kind of issue, I'm not sure that's the right approach. I'd regard this of more of a social issue, to be addressed through communication between author and consumer (e.g. via documentation or conversation) and/or more explicit attention by the consumer. > safety risk being on the server side, if I understand it right > The idea is to let the user take the risk locally It's actually the client-side we have to worry about. Plugins are executed in the context of the respective document, with full access to its data and thus the potential to wreak havoc (e.g. deleting tiddlers or exposing sensitive data). > A plugin, in your own space, could(?) save the names of the missing > macros and crawl/spider through F to locate the tiddler names where > these macros are defined. This is the "identification" part. Programmatically identifying the plugin which provides a given macro is not easy. -- F. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
